Case Number: BC650138 Hearing Date: December 26, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff Beverlee Cooke (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Vanram Sahakyan (erroneously sued as Sahakyan Vanram) (“Defendant”) for negligence relating to a February 22, 2015 automobile accident in which Defendant was providing an Uber ride to Plaintiff.

Written Discovery

On September 14, 2018, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Wendy Skillman, ¶¶ 5, 6; Exh. A.) Plaintiff failed to serve responses and Defendant sent a meet and confer letter. (Skillman Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8; Exh. C.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses and monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Deposition Documents

On September 19, 2018, Defendant deposed Plaintiff. (Declaration of Bryan D. Coryell, ¶ 2.) The deposition notice requested the production of: (1) any and all medical bills for medical treatment relating to this accident; (2) all documents relating to lost wages she is claiming as a result of this accident; (3) any and all medical records and reports regarding injuries sustained in this accident. (Coryell Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.)

At her deposition, Plaintiff testified she had produced documents to prove her income before the accident and her loss of income after the accident. However, she also stated she would produce additional documents reflecting income she earned while working in Winnipeg, Canada and her tax returns. (Coryell Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has not produced these documents relating to work in Winnipeg, Canada.

Defense counsel argues that although Plaintiff claims wage loss of $15,000 to $20,000, the only documents produced that relate to lost income are 14 invoices and 3 payment records from 2014. (Coryell Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff also admitted she has not produced all documents relating to her medical treatment. (Coryell Decl., ¶ 11.)

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

As to both Motions, Plaintiff argues she has already responded to and complied with Defendant’s requests for documents, including written discovery and at her deposition. (Declaration of Dennis P. Wilson, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel also refers to objections made to document requests that sought privileged material or attorney work product. However, Plaintiff provided no copy of the objections made to Defendant’s document requests. Plaintiff also does not address Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff, at her deposition, agreed to provide additional documents relating to work done in Winnipeg, Canada.

In sum, it is not clear from Plaintiff’s opposition that requested documents have actually been produced or properly objected to. Even where Plaintiff objections on the grounds of privilege or attorney work product, Plaintiff is required to produce a privilege log.

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff has not produced all documents in her possession or control that are responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set Two and Defendant’s Demand for Production contained in the Deposition Notice, the Motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve verified responses or a privilege log within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is also ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $460.00 for one hour at Ms. Skillman’s hourly rate, one hour at Mr. Coryell’s hourly rate, and $120.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.